From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am

wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm
wrote:
From: on Fri, Oct 13 2006 7:09pm
wrote:
From: on Fri, Oct 13 2006 10:15am
wrote:
From: on Wed, Oct 11 2006 5:56 pm

Its also interesting that when you use one of his tactics on him, he
says that justifies him doing it in the first place. Such as Mark
out-assholing him.

It's a weird, delusional circular-logic thing of his.

Yeh, its hard to explain.

He is too deluded about himself now to change, though.

His postings have the full support of his wife, he says.

Which one, I wonder? He's paid alimony to the first,
makes nice-nice claims about his second's amateur license,
but it probably in some delusional phase thinking about
wifey #3 that doesn't exist.

However, he IS condoned by all the amateur extras in
here with exceptions only of Hans and Alun. He is "A-OK"
with Jimmie Noserve and that Waffen SS guy...

She has a ham license and she has an RRAP account. And she's posted
here before.

Only once as I recall. Of course that could also have been
one of his alternate personalities. There's no easy way to
tell just from the posting.

Yet she remains silent on her husbands heinous activities on RRAP.

Or maybe she's a figment of his imagination and Robesin would have to
roll out her old RRAP account when he's much too busy creating new
accounts for our geophysicist visitors.

"Geophysicists?" :-)

Must have missed those. shrug Hawaii is the new
rock-and-roll state. Newington, CT, will ignore it as it
does all other things west of the Mississippi River...


He quotes himself in here, then claims I have misquoted him.

That's all in his delusional syndrome.

There is no logic in the stuff he says.

Such might exist in his delusional Stevieworld...?

Precisely. I'm sure that everything makes sense... in his mind.

Problem is he tries to "fit in" with reality and that
doesn't work. He can't get by on bluffing and LIES.

For years he has tried to avoid posting anything
anywhere to document his alleged 18-year active USMC
career. He won't even make it available as private
e-mail.


What he "sees" on his screens seems to be different than
what everyone else sees. It is all part of his delusion.

If he would quit forging the attributes maybe he could keep it all
straight.

He can't keep himself straight.

Just think, 18 years in a supposed career and he has NO
documentation of it, not even a snapshot!

Certainly "Combat Camera" has some footage of his seven hostile
actions?

Do they count tavern fights in Escondido or the Mojave?



I give Paul NO "benefit." I've gone round-and-around with him
both in public and private. That gives me a good feeling of
how he will "moderate" this group.

It will just end up with the Coders patting each other on the back for
their heroics.

Sigh...a whole newsgroup devoted to MORSE MYTHS. :-(

When hasn't it been so?

Ah, so true, so true... :-(

True, but in ham-years, that is is just a blink away. I passed my
Novice exams twenty (20) years ago this month and the Old-Timers still
classify me as a newbie.

In the minds of some olde-tymers they think they invented
ham radio. shrug

Even Hiram didn't invent ham radio.

Really? :-)

Sad, but true.

Sic transit gloria mundi. ["so goes the glory of the world"]



I guess we need a "clarification" on that from Mister ham radio,
Jimmie Noserve. He always claims the "correct" definition on
just about everything. :-)

Even though Jim posts with authority, not all of his postings are
factual.

Ol' Jimmie really gets off on the Philadelphia area "firsts."

He went into fantasy orgasm on ENIAC of 1946. He conveniently
left out the Colossus work in the UK from 1942 onwards and
made NO mention of the Atanasoff-Berry Computer at Iowa State
University in 1939. The "ABC" was recreated (almost exactly
as the original) in 1998 at ISU in Ames, IA.

I had originally mixed up 'Ohio' and 'Iowa' and 'OSU' v 'ISU.'
[thanks to a private e-mail from another, non-RRAP person]
My apologies to Iowa State and its grads and fans. Ohio State
had a good computer science section in 1970s and 1980s,
probably still has. Just the same, Professor John V. Atanasoff
had the first idea that was put into practice with the help
of graduate student Clifford Berry...in 1939 to 1942. Iowa
State has some very good pages on the "ABC" in the Internet,
including the working replica.

Jimmie also left out an important patent civil suit between
Honeywell and Sperry-Rand (which had bought out the ENIAC
rights to bail out a near-bankrupt Eckert and Mauchly).
ENIAC had claimed to be the "first." Problem is, Mauchly
had visited ISU, even staying at Atanasoff's hourse for days,
learning about the "ABC," seeing it, talking to Cliff Berry.
In 1941. All of that came out in court and ISU has copies
of the judge's 19 October 1973 final decision paper.

That sort of SELECTIVE highlighting with the sin of
omission or related facts is what the ARRL does most of
the time. Naturally, those who attended the "parochial
school" of the Church of St. Hiram will pick up on the
technique.



The Imposter is just another common carbon-copy of that
mid-life-crisis guy, but one on speed or uppers.

Mitty sure gets around.

Hmmm... "What goes around comes around?" [perish the thought!]

And around and around and around (that shoelace).

Imposter is fit to be tied...or has a fit when tied too tight.
).

wrote:

Even though Jim posts with authority, not all of his postings are
factual.

Give us an example.


He went into fantasy orgasm on ENIAC of 1946.

Just stating facts, Len. Nothing I stated about that machine was
incorrect.

He conveniently
left out the Colossus work in the UK from 1942 onwards and
made NO mention of the Atanasoff-Berry Computer at Iowa State
University in 1939. The "ABC" was recreated (almost exactly
as the original) in 1998 at ISU in Ames, IA.

Was the Colossus a general purpose machine? Was it electronic, or
partly electromechanical? Did it have a jump instruction?

Or was it a custom-made special-purpose decryption machine?

As for the ABC, it was not completely electronic. More importantly, the
original was never completed. ENIAC was fully operational for over a
decade - ABC was not finished until 1998.

I had originally mixed up 'Ohio' and 'Iowa' and 'OSU' v 'ISU.'
[thanks to a private e-mail from another, non-RRAP person]
My apologies to Iowa State and its grads and fans. Ohio State
had a good computer science section in 1970s and 1980s,
probably still has. Just the same, Professor John V. Atanasoff
had the first idea that was put into practice with the help
of graduate student Clifford Berry...in 1939 to 1942. Iowa
State has some very good pages on the "ABC" in the Internet,
including the working replica.

But the original ABC was never fully operational, nor complete.

left out an important patent civil suit between
Honeywell and Sperry-Rand (which had bought out the ENIAC
rights to bail out a near-bankrupt Eckert and Mauchly).
ENIAC had claimed to be the "first." Problem is, Mauchly
had visited ISU, even staying at Atanasoff's hourse for days,
learning about the "ABC," seeing it, talking to Cliff Berry.
In 1941. All of that came out in court and ISU has copies
of the judge's 19 October 1973 final decision paper.

Doesn't change the validity of what I wrote. The ENIAC was completed
and operational by 1946. ABC was not. The patent in question was not
relevant to which machine was the first general purpose, high speed,
electronic digital computer.

That sort of SELECTIVE highlighting with the sin of
omission or related facts is what the ARRL does most of
the time.

That's just sour graoes in your part, Len. Completely untrue.

From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:32pm

wrote:

Even though Jim posts with authority, not all of his postings are
factual.

Give us an example.

You GOT the "example."

He went into fantasy orgasm on ENIAC of 1946.

Just stating facts, Len. Nothing I stated about that machine was
incorrect.

You copied off the Moore School website PR material.
In itself that material is either incomplete or
erroneous...such as the extravagant claim that
"ENIAC changed the world."

The FACT is that tomorrow, Thursday, 19 October, marks
the 33rd anniversary of a federal court decision on
who had the first electronic computer. The judge's
decision was that Iowa State University had it, the
Atanasoff-Berry Computer (familiarly called "ABC").

Not only that, court transcripts indicate that John
Mauchly had already seen the "ABC" but talked to both
Atanasoff and Berry in detail on that "ABC." Further,
Mauchly and Atanasoff exchanged mail following Mauchly's
trip to Iowa to see the "ABC."

If you wish to see more and in detail on the REAL
"first electronic computer," just go to:

http://www.iastate.edu

And follow the links. There's many pages of information
on the "ABC" plus that famous trial about "the ENIAC
patents." Sperry-Rand (who had purchased the rights to
the ENIAC patents) LOST that trial. TS for Sperry-Rand.
Not only that, the judge chided Mauchly in his decision
paper, stating that Mauchly had taken a priori knowledge
from the "ABC" and tried to pass it off as "his" for the
ENIAC.


As for the ABC, it was not completely electronic.

Really?!? WTF are you talking about? Look at the Iowa
State "ABC" pages. Nice illustrations of it.

More importantly, the original was never completed.

"Never completed?!?" WTF are you talking about?
It was "completed" in the 1939 to 1942 period. As far
as a federal court is concerned it was most definitely
COMPLETED, completed well enough for the judge to
declare it, the "ABC", was the FIRST electronic
computer. [TRY to get used to that, Jimmie, I know it
is damn difficult for you but for 33 years the "first"
electronic computer title has gone to the Atanasoff-
Berry Computer of 1939]

ENIAC was fully operational for over a
decade -

NOT "fully operational" by Moore School or the short-
lived 'company' of Mauchly and Eckert (they went broke
and Sperry-Rand had to bail them out by buying rights
to the machine). The US Army took it over (having paid
for it in the first place) and John Von Neuman suggested
the Army should CHANGE certain parts of it.

ENIAC was *NOT* the "First" electronic computer. Get
used to it.

ABC was not finished until 1998.

Bull****. What *I* described was a REPLICA. Built by
the Computer Sciences Department of Iowa State. Between
1942 and about 1994 (a mere 52 years), the original "ABC"
had been scrounged for parts for other projects. All that
remained of the original (in the 1990s) was one memory
drum. Atanasoff and Berry kept good notes and diagrams,
even wrote some internal papers about the "ABC." Those
were used to build the REPLICA.

"ABC" used a revolving drum holding capacitors for
electronic memory storage...each capacitor storing one
binary bit. "ABC" had a "recharge" section which would
keep the bit capacitors' charges up for as long as it
was on. Note: In the 1939-1942 time frame there was
no such thing as a magnetic memory drum to use by
anyone. [magnetic recording was not yet mature in that
time frame, but it was available...barely] Atanasoff
and Berry had to use what was available. "High-speed"
mass memory didn't exist until the invention of the
"Williams tube" in the UK, the one using a CRT faceplate
with conductive foil in small patches on it to form an
equivalent charge storage for each bit.

ENIAC was NEVER replicated in its original form. At best
is a Moore School internal project for "ENIAC on a chip,"
putting the whole thing on a single IC. That info is on
the ENIAC website, perhaps of interest, perhaps not since
Intel had the FIRST CPU-on-a-chip decades ago.


But the original ABC was never fully operational, nor complete.

It was COMPLETE. It was FULLY OPERATIONAL as to its
intended tasks.

The "ABC" was intended to be used to solve certain
problems. It did that. While it was NEVER intended
to solve "all-purpose" computing problems (as if the
modern mainframes had existed in 1939 to use as a
model of that), it was FULLY OPERATIONAL enough for a
court to decide which electronic computer was FIRST.


Doesn't change the validity of what I wrote. The ENIAC was completed
and operational by 1946. ABC was not.

False. Firstly, YOU NEVER mentioned the "ABC." Secondly,
"ABC" was completed and operational by 1942, four years
prior to the ENIAC first running.

The patent in question was not
relevant to which machine was the first general purpose, high speed,
electronic digital computer.

The TIME FRAME is the relevant item, Jimmie, the TIME FRAME.
1939 to 1942 is WELL BEFORE the ENIAC.

Further, John Mauchly essentially committed intellectual
property theft of certain aspects of "ABC" to use in ENIAC.

Trashcan the "high speed" adjectives for ENIAC, Jimmie.
It is NOT "high speed" at all. It was slower in operation
than my Apple ][+ of 1980. It was slower than ALL of the
first personal electronic computers made in the 1960s and
1970s. "Programming" of ENIAC sometimes "took weeks" for
a single task according to some REAL computer history sites
and textbooks.

That sort of SELECTIVE highlighting with the sin of
omission or related facts is what the ARRL does most of
the time.

That's just sour graoes in your part, Len. Completely untrue.

I've never tasted a "sour graoe." What is it?

The ARRL *DOES* 'sin by omission' of lots of radio-electronic
history. 'Sin of omission' refers to mentioning ONLY what
the ARRL thinks is relevant for amateur radio and to make
prospective members think they can join a completely 'honest'
organization. ARRL is also a POLITICAL ENTITY, Jimmie, it
lobbies for things *it* wants, but says what it wants is
"for the good of amateur radio." [typical POLITICAL spin]

Sorry, Jimmie, but what I wrote *IS* completely TRUE. Try
untwisting your knickers a bit and quit trying to defend
the ARRL as if you were an army of one. [you've never
served in any military, don't know how to fight for your
or anyone else's life] ARRL *IS* a political entity and
deserves every comment it gets, good or bad.

From: on Wed, Oct 18 2006 11:03pm


On 18 Oct 2006 19:57:49 -0700, "
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:32pm
wrote:

Even though Jim posts with authority, not all of his postings are

Sorry, Jimmie, but what I wrote *IS* completely TRUE. Try
untwisting your knickers a bit and quit trying to defend
the ARRL as if you were an army of one. [you've never
served in any military, don't know how to fight for your
or anyone else's life] ARRL *IS* a political entity and
deserves every comment it gets, good or bad.

Len I must take issue with you while I have come to dislike the ARRL
it doesnot deserve many of the coments it gets

The ARRL is three things in one. It is a national membership
organization; it is a publishing company; it is a political
entity with both a Lobbying firm and a Legal firm on retainer
in DC.

The publishing effort of the triad makes enough profit to
sustain the 'services' it offers to members and to keep the
Lobbying and Legal firms billing payments. Membership dues
won't pay for even a tenth of the total upkeep of the ARRL.
The publishing part offers the ARRL a virtual monopoly of
control of US amateur's opinions via graphics and text.
You don't see any conditioned thinking possible with having
a virtual control of US amateurs' opinions?

Since the Lobbying and Legal part of the triad is a POLITICAL
effort, the ARRL is also a POLITICAL ENTITY. In the grand
old American tradition for over two centuries, political
entities are fair game for any person, any time, any where.

It does not deserve (although it tries to claim cridet for the current
tech license) it does not deservse cridet (or blame) for the fact we
all know (but maybe jim that NoCode Hf (at least for the general class
and likely extra as well) is coming soon (at least in ham radio terms)

Details of the ARRL's 92-year history are simply details of
history. PRESENT-DAY facts are that the ARRL is also a
POLITICAL ENTITY...a SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP.

I WILL stay with what I've said about the ARRL.

wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:32pm

wrote:

Even though Jim posts with authority, not all of his postings are
factual.

Give us an example.

You GOT the "example."

Where? I think you can't provide one, and are just dodging the facts.

He went into fantasy orgasm on ENIAC of 1946.

Just stating facts, Len. Nothing I stated about that machine was
incorrect.

You copied off the Moore School website PR material.

Nope. Not at all. You are mistaken.

Here's one source:

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html

And another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eniac

There's also the book about ENIAC, which you probably haven't/won't
read.

In itself that material is either incomplete or
erroneous...such as the extravagant claim that
"ENIAC changed the world."

Nope. Not at all. You are mistaken.

ENIAC *did* change the world. It was the true beginning of modern
computing. It's the root of the tree:

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap7.html

Is the US Army wrong?

The FACT is that tomorrow, Thursday, 19 October, marks
the 33rd anniversary of a federal court decision on
who had the first electronic computer.

So what? That does not contradict what I wrote.

ENIAC was the world's very first fully operational, high speed, general
purpose, electronic
digital computer.

That's what I wrote before, and it's a fact.

The judge's
decision was that Iowa State University had it, the
Atanasoff-Berry Computer (familiarly called "ABC").

The judge was ruling on the patents, not on which machine was the
world's very first fully operational, high speed, general purpose,
electronic digital computer. Which was ENIAC

Not only that, court transcripts indicate that John
Mauchly had already seen the "ABC" but talked to both
Atanasoff and Berry in detail on that "ABC." Further,
Mauchly and Atanasoff exchanged mail following Mauchly's
trip to Iowa to see the "ABC."

No one denied that - not even Mauchly himself.

If you wish to see more and in detail on the REAL
"first electronic computer," just go to:

http://www.iastate.edu

The Iowa State PR site.

And follow the links.

What links? Can't you provide something more direct?

There's many pages of information
on the "ABC" plus that famous trial about "the ENIAC
patents." Sperry-Rand (who had purchased the rights to
the ENIAC patents) LOST that trial. TS for Sperry-Rand.
Not only that, the judge chided Mauchly in his decision
paper, stating that Mauchly had taken a priori knowledge
from the "ABC" and tried to pass it off as "his" for the
ENIAC.

The ABC was not even a true computer.

As for the ABC, it was not completely electronic.

Really?!? WTF are you talking about?

The facts, Len. It was part electronic and part electromechanical.
Motors and switching drums, storage of intermediate results on paper,
and much more.

Look at the Iowa
State "ABC" pages. Nice illustrations of it.

Which prove my point.

More importantly, the original was never completed.

"Never completed?!?" WTF are you talking about?
It was "completed" in the 1939 to 1942 period.

Nope. It was never fully operational. It never completed a full-scale
calculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer

As far
as a federal court is concerned it was most definitely
COMPLETED, completed well enough for the judge to
declare it, the "ABC", was the FIRST electronic
computer.

Was the judge an engineer?

The judge was ruling on the patents, not on which machine was the
world's very first fully operational, high speed, general purpose,
electronic digital computer. Which was ENIAC.

[TRY to get used to that, Jimmie, I know it
is damn difficult for you but for 33 years the "first"
electronic computer title has gone to the Atanasoff-
Berry Computer of 1939]

The ABC was not a computer in the modern sense. Or even in the 1945
sense.

All the ABC was designed to do was to solve systems of linear
equations. It could not do anything else.

By definition, a true computer is Turing-complete. ENIAC was
Turing-complete, ABC was not. ENIAC was a true computer, ABC was not.
End of story.

ENIAC was fully operational for over a
decade -

NOT "fully operational" by Moore School or the short-
lived 'company' of Mauchly and Eckert (they went broke
and Sperry-Rand had to bail them out by buying rights
to the machine).

Boy, Len, you really are on a roll with the mistakes. You make 'em in
quantity!

ENIAC was fully operational at the Moore School *and* at the Aberdeen
Proving Grounds. That's not an opinion - it's the official Army
history:

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html

The US Army took it over (having paid
for it in the first place) and John Von Neuman suggested
the Army should CHANGE certain parts of it.

Eckert and Mauchly came up with the idea and convinced the Army to fund
it. The Army accepted and used ENIAC for almost a decade.

The improvements suggested by John Von Neumann (note the spelling) were
later incorporated, as were other improvements by the original
inventors.

ENIAC was *NOT* the "First" electronic computer.

Who said it was? Not me.

ENIAC was the world's very first fully operational, high speed, general
purpose, electronic
digital computer.

ABC was a special purpose calculator.

Get used to it.

Take your own advice.

ABC was not finished until 1998.

Bull****.

No, a fact.

What *I* described was a REPLICA. Built by
the Computer Sciences Department of Iowa State. Between
1942 and about 1994 (a mere 52 years), the original "ABC"
had been scrounged for parts for other projects. All that
remained of the original (in the 1990s) was one memory
drum. Atanasoff and Berry kept good notes and diagrams,
even wrote some internal papers about the "ABC." Those
were used to build the REPLICA.

Because the original was never fully operational. Explain how something
that is not fully operational can be complete.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer

"ABC" used a revolving drum holding capacitors for
electronic memory storage...each capacitor storing one
binary bit. "ABC" had a "recharge" section which would
keep the bit capacitors' charges up for as long as it
was on.

An electromechanical system. Not electronic.

Note: In the 1939-1942 time frame there was
no such thing as a magnetic memory drum to use by
anyone. [magnetic recording was not yet mature in that
time frame, but it was available...barely] Atanasoff
and Berry had to use what was available.

So they used an electromechanical system rather than an electronic
system. They also used paper storage for intermediate results.

"High-speed"
mass memory didn't exist until the invention of the
"Williams tube" in the UK, the one using a CRT faceplate
with conductive foil in small patches on it to form an
equivalent charge storage for each bit.

So? What's your point?

ENIAC was NEVER replicated in its original form.

Doesn't matter. Even as ENIAC was being built, Eckert and Mauchly
thought up improvements, which wound up in EDVAC. They could not be
included in ENIAC because the design phase was over. Had to meet the
schedules.

ENIAC worked for almost a decade. The original ABC was never fully
functional and was abandoned for more than five decades.

At best
is a Moore School internal project for "ENIAC on a chip,"
putting the whole thing on a single IC. That info is on
the ENIAC website, perhaps of interest, perhaps not since
Intel had the FIRST CPU-on-a-chip decades ago.

Irrelevant.

But the original ABC was never fully operational, nor complete.

It was COMPLETE. It was FULLY OPERATIONAL as to its
intended tasks.

Incorrect on both counts. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer

All the ABC could do was solve systems of linear equations. That's all
Atanasoff intended, and he abandoned the machine for other work. He and
Berry did not challenge the ENIAC patents - Honeywell did, because IBM
was trying to use them to monopolize the industry. That monopoly
attempt backfired on Big Blue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_v._Sperry_Rand

The "ABC" was intended to be used to solve certain
problems. It did that.

Systems of linear equations and nothing else. That's a special-purpose
calculator, not a computer. ENIAC was a true computer, ABC was not. End
of story.

While it was NEVER intended
to solve "all-purpose" computing problems (as if the
modern mainframes had existed in 1939 to use as a
model of that), it was FULLY OPERATIONAL enough for a
court to decide which electronic computer was FIRST.

The court was about the patents.

A patent does not require a fully operational example, either. All it
requires is that the concept not contradict known science.

Doesn't change the validity of what I wrote. The ENIAC was completed
and operational by 1946. ABC was not.

False.

No, true.

Firstly, YOU NEVER mentioned the "ABC." Secondly,
"ABC" was completed and operational by 1942, four years
prior to the ENIAC first running.

Not according to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer

The patent in question was not
relevant to which machine was the first general purpose, high speed,
electronic digital computer.

The TIME FRAME is the relevant item, Jimmie,

Who is this person you call "Jimmie", Len?

My name is Jim. "Jimmie" isn't me.

the TIME FRAME.
1939 to 1942 is WELL BEFORE the ENIAC.

Further, John Mauchly essentially committed intellectual
property theft of certain aspects of "ABC" to use in ENIAC.

How? What elements were used? The addition-subtraction method was
completely different. ENIAC did not use an electromechanical drum and
did not use binary.

If anything, Mauchly was more influenced by the counting circuits he
had used previously for other purposes.

Trashcan the "high speed" adjectives for ENIAC,

No.

It is NOT "high speed" at all.

Not by today's standards.

It was slower in operation
than my Apple ][+ of 1980.
It was slower than ALL of the
first personal electronic computers made in the 1960s and
1970s.

Irrelevant.

ENIAC was high speed because it was orders of magnitude faster than
anything that had existed before. ABC used a 60 Hz clock - ENIAC was
more than 100 times faster. Faster than any previous machine by at
least an order of magnitude, usually by several orders of magnitude.

"Programming" of ENIAC sometimes "took weeks" for
a single task according to some REAL computer history sites
and textbooks.

Writing software takes time, Len. That's what they were doing.

That sort of SELECTIVE highlighting with the sin of
omission or related facts is what the ARRL does most of
the time.

That's just sour graoes in your part, Len. Completely untrue.

I've never tasted a "sour graoe." What is it?

Sour grapes, You should know.

The ARRL *DOES* 'sin by omission' of lots of radio-electronic
history.

Nope.

'Sin of omission' refers to mentioning ONLY what
the ARRL thinks is relevant for amateur radio and to make
prospective members think they can join a completely 'honest'
organization.

You're really on a roll with the nonsense, Len. Give a concrete,
factual example for a change. Oh wait - you can't. Facts aren't your
style.

ARRL is also a POLITICAL ENTITY,

it
lobbies for things *it* wants, but says what it wants is
"for the good of amateur radio." [typical POLITICAL spin]

"The good of amateur radio" is an opinion, Len. Aren't they allowed to
put forth an opinion?

Sorry,

but what I wrote *IS* completely TRUE.

No, it isn't. It's a typical bunch of your errors, mistakes, and
general attention-seeking nonsense.

Try
untwisting your knickers a bit and quit trying to defend
the ARRL as if you were an army of one. [you've never
served in any military, don't know how to fight for your
or anyone else's life] ARRL *IS* a political entity and
deserves every comment it gets, good or bad.

Why should you let facts stand in the way, Len? That's not your style.

Here are those references again:

ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS WITHIN THE ORDNANCE CORPS
Index:
http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/index.html

Chap 2 on ENIAC:
http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html

Tree of Computing:
http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap7.html


Other references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_v._Sperry_Rand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eniac

wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am

wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm

Or maybe she's a figment of his imagination and Robesin would have to
roll out her old RRAP account when he's much too busy creating new
accounts for our geophysicist visitors.

"Geophysicists?" :-)

Why sure, Leonard. Your pal, Col. Mark Morgan has now confessed to
being a geophysicist. From some of his message headers, he is missing
his id.

Must have missed those. shrug Hawaii is the new
rock-and-roll state. Newington, CT, will ignore it as it
does all other things west of the Mississippi River...

There aren't many of your posts in which you don't tell some outright
falsehood. Both CNN and Fox News carried accounts of cellular phone
service being disrupted. I'll bet some of those radio hams end up
handling communication in the aftermath of the earthquake. Texas is
west of the Mississippi. Do you think hams will be a part of the action
in the wake of the flooding there?

For years he has tried to avoid posting anything
anywhere to document his alleged 18-year active USMC
career. He won't even make it available as private
e-mail.

I served in the military only four years, Len. I've posted nothing here
in documenting my active duty service. I've not, nor would I ever make
any such documentation available to you in an e-mail. Look what kind of
things you've written about my active duty military service. Go figure!

That sort of SELECTIVE highlighting with the sin of
omission or related facts is what the ARRL does most of
the time. Naturally, those who attended the "parochial
school" of the Church of St. Hiram will pick up on the
technique.

You haven't attended catechism studies and haven't been confirmed. You
don't pledge, you don't tithe. You may not partake. You're still an
unbaptized heathen in the world of amateur radio.

Dave K8MN

From: Dave Heil on Wed, Oct 18 2006 3:06 pm

wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am
wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm


There aren't many of your posts in which you don't tell some outright
falsehood.

"Outright falsehoods?" Illuminate the group with your
godly light and tell me that OPINIONS are "factual." :-)

Both CNN and Fox News carried accounts of cellular phone
service being disrupted. I'll bet some of those radio hams end up
handling communication in the aftermath of the earthquake.

Have CNN or Fox News carried acounts of hams "up handling
communication" in the aftermath of the [Hawaii] earthquake?
How about ABC, CBS, or NBC? Any major newspapers?

The Hawaii 6.7-Richter earthquake is OVER, senior. No
loss of life. Property damage, some. Utility damage,
some. The Governor of Hawaii has been quoted (several
times) as saying "Hawaii is open for business!" :-)

Is amateur radio about business? Sorry, it can't be.
FCC defines USA amateur radio as being done WITHOUT
pecuniary interest. No money for services rendered.
That doesn't sound like any "business" in the normal sense.

Texas is west of the Mississippi.

Fantastic bit of TRIVIA, mister atlas. :-)

Or do we call you Rand or McNally? :-)


I served in the military only four years, Len.

That's four MORE years than some civilian in PA served. :-)


I've posted nothing here
in documenting my active duty service.

Not a word? Oh, THAT is a complete FALSEHOOD! :-)


I've not, nor would I ever make
any such documentation available to you in an e-mail.

How about making it available to law enforcement? :-)


Look what kind of
things you've written about my active duty military service.

Tsk, I've failed to acknowledge your glorious heroism
in "a country at war?" Oh, my. Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk...

You need some medal or ribbon to highlight your "active
duty military service?" BUY some. They are easy to
purchase. Somebody with the license call K4YZ has done
that, hasn't he? :-)

Of course, WE don't know EXACTLY WHAT this "K4YZ" call
sign person ever did...except for his bluffing and
bragging in here. Not ONE SINGLE item to document
that. Yet Hans Brakob has made it available. Frank
Gilliland has made it available. I've got a whole
20-page photo essay posted on what I did.


You haven't attended catechism studies and haven't been confirmed. You
don't pledge, you don't tithe. You may not partake. You're still an
unbaptized heathen in the world of amateur radio.

Sorry, but I Pledge from time to time. Good furniture
polish and dusting treatment.

I don't tithe amateur radio. It is NOT a religion.
It isn't a recognized religion. Except maybe in a
small town in Connecticutt? :-)

Tsk, tsk, I've been a hobbyist in radio and electronics
for 59 years, still doing that. I've been a professional
(as in accepting compensation for work performed) for 54
years, still doing that (but not now in regular office
hours).

I partake all I want, anytime I want. Fascinating thing
this radio-electronics thing. Made it my career choice.

I have a COMMERCIAL radio operator license, even had a
BUSINESS radio license. I got "baptised" (using your
ugly and insulting term) back in 1953 doing high-power
long-distance HF transmitting. I've since transmitted
legally from the air (at the controls of an aircraft)
and from the sea (from a private boat on HF SSB). I've
worked a station ON the moon...something amateurs have
NEVER done. :-)

Well, yes, I would imagine YOU think of ham radio as
some kind of "religion" where mantra is everything but
the technology is too ethereal for you to understand.
Take heart, your epiphany may come, even without anyone
kicking your phany.

As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Wed, Oct 18 2006 3:06 pm
wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am
wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm

There aren't many of your posts in which you don't tell some outright
falsehood.

"Outright falsehoods?"

Yup. Mistakes, errors, things that aren't true.

Illuminate the group with your
godly light and tell me that OPINIONS are "factual." :-)

Opinions are not sacred, Len. Not even yours. The mere fact that
someone holds an opinion does prevent it from being a falsehood.

For example, you may be of the opinion that the moon is made of green
cheese, or that it is 500 miles from Vladivostok to Tokyo. Both are
falsehoods.

Also, you are not clear about when you are providing an opinion and
when you are providing an alleged fact. You do not usually qualify your
statements with phrases like 'I think' or 'I feel' or 'IMHO'. Instead,
you state your opinions as if they are unquestionably true facts. They
aren't.

Of course, WE don't know EXACTLY WHAT this "K4YZ" call
sign person ever did...except for his bluffing and
bragging in here. Not ONE SINGLE item to document
that.

Yet you call him "an imposter" without any proof.

Yet Hans Brakob has made it available. Frank
Gilliland has made it available.

So? Who are *you* to demand proof?

I've got a whole
20-page photo essay posted on what I did.

Is it on what *you* did or on what the 700-man military unit that you
were assigned to did?

From: on Thurs, Oct 19 2006 2:46 am

[Jimmie and Davie are interchangeable entities now?]

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Wed, Oct 18 2006 3:06 pm
wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am
wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm


Opinions are not sacred, Len.

Yes they are, Jimmie. Amateur extra morsemen hold the code
test to be SACRED forever and ever. All those against it
tell "falsehoods" because they are against it. :-)

Not even yours. The mere fact that
someone holds an opinion does prevent it from being a falsehood.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, you are arguing against yourself there!

So, I state an OPINION that you don't like and it is a
"falsehood." But, because it IS an opinion, PREVENTS it
from being a "falsehood." :-)


Also, you are not clear about when you are providing an opinion and
when you are providing an alleged fact. You do not usually qualify your
statements with phrases like 'I think' or 'I feel' or 'IMHO'. Instead,
you state your opinions as if they are unquestionably true facts. They
aren't.

WTF are you babbling about?

Did you put on the Mother Superior habit already, knuckle-
spank ruler at the ready to correct "improper grammar?"


Of course, WE don't know EXACTLY WHAT this "K4YZ" call
sign person ever did...except for his bluffing and
bragging in here. Not ONE SINGLE item to document
that.

Yet you call him "an imposter" without any proof.

PRECISELY! [it took a while for that to sink in your brain,
but it did!]

BECAUSE he has NO proof AT ALL he gets called an IMPOSTER.


Yet Hans Brakob has made it available. Frank
Gilliland has made it available.

So? Who are *you* to demand proof?

A MILITARY VETERAN, Jimmie, something you will NEVER be.
Hans is a veteran, Frank is a veteran, Brian Burke is a
veteran.

When one takes an Oath putting their LIFE on the line in
military service it becomes very serious indeed. One
helluva lot MORE SERIOUS than having some amateur radio
hobby with imagined self-glory.


Is it on what *you* did or on what the 700-man military unit that you
were assigned to did?

Both. You can read it via:

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf

About 6 MB file size, takes 19 minutes download on dial-up.
Lots of photos in there in case you have trouble with the
technological words.

Its about something YOU can NEVER have, Jimmie. You never
volunteered for military service...even when you had the
chance. You are NO JUDGE over any military unit activities.


As ever to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.

wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 19 2006 2:46 am

[Jimmie and Davie are interchangeable entities now?]

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Wed, Oct 18 2006 3:06 pm
wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am
wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm


BECAUSE he has NO proof AT ALL he gets called an IMPOSTER.


Yet Hans Brakob has made it available. Frank
Gilliland has made it available.

So? Who are *you* to demand proof?

A MILITARY VETERAN, Jimmie, something you will NEVER be.

MILITARY VETERANS get to demand proof? Really? I never saw myself as
superior to other citizens who never donned a military uniform.

Hans is a veteran, Frank is a veteran, Brian Burke is a
veteran.

I'm a veteran. Dan from W4-land is a veteran. Do we get to demand
proof for your sphincter post? It'd be nice to know where and when the
artillery barrage took place and if your friend Gene can confirm it.

When one takes an Oath putting their LIFE on the line in
military service it becomes very serious indeed.

Well, it could become very serious if you ever actually had occasion to
put your life on the line.

One
helluva lot MORE SERIOUS than having some amateur radio
hobby with imagined self-glory.

....only if you were called upon to actually put your life on the line,
Len. Otherwise, you need to quit wrapping yourself in bunting and
stepping up on that soapbox.

Would the term "self-glory" come into play in discussing a guy who went
into great detail describing what it was like to undergo an artillery
barrage, except that he had never been involved in such an event?
Would you be inclined to describe such an individual as a sort of
imposter? It is certainly something for you to ponder.

Dave K8MN